I see your point: The trespasser at the organisation where you worked actually did the organisation a favour by trespassing and making a big scene. Glen did CASA a favour in bringing about a change in 'security posture' through his stalking and assault.
It's no wonder "it was decided not to proceed" with any prosecution action. These people weren't committing crimes: they we were doing a public service.
It looks like ex-High Court judge Geoffrey Nettle was being too 'black and white' when he issued the ultimatum to the Victorian government to disband his office or he would resign, citing frustration with the Victorian director of public prosecutions refusing to approve criminal charges against those involved in 'Lawyer X' scandal. (Victoria is regularly on the medal podium in the (very strong) competition for the Australian jurisdiction whose police and prosecutors most frequently pervert the course of justice see all that grey in between the black and the white.)
Still doesn't explain why the CASA FOI officer can't find any CASA documents with the word "assault" or the word "stalking" to describe Glen's behaviour, nor why Carmody was "sick of it". Maybe "it" was not only Glen's behaviour but also the failure of police and prosecutors to get off their arses and do their jobs?
Or maybe there was no assault or stalking and Glen's behaviour was lawful and the perfectly reasonable response to CASA's industrial-strength, corporate incompetence?
I reckon it would be great to get to the truth.